A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was physically and mentally weak.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant (five million won in a penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, were consistent with the investigation agency, and the Defendant was consistently in the position of Mauritius 4 C with the smallest amount of 4 Maurits, which is larger than his average amount at the time.

“A statement is made to the purport that “. In fact, the Defendant is unable to memory almost about the present situation, the background and place of the crime, etc., and the police officers G, who suffered damage from the war, also put the Defendant out of the pursuant to the investigative agency “at the site upon receiving a report, and her two police officers were set off.” However, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol so that the two persons were unable to cope with the Defendant.

Recognizing the witness J and the victim E also made a statement “Is the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that the Defendant was unable to communicate with his or her completely lost gender.”

“The Defendant stated to the effect that the Defendant was unable to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, in light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the means and methods of committing the crime, and the Defendant’s behavior and circumstances before and after the instant crime.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. In light of the circumstances leading up to the crime, method of violence, degree, etc., the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant, and the police officers, upon receiving a report, assaulted the victims of the Defendant’s rioting in the park, and continued to wear a sway, and even after carrying out the police box, the police officers did not take the sway or cellular phone.

On the other hand, however, the defendant.